Цитата:
Сообщение от LCR
for me, Munk represents Scandinavia, together with the other genius - Hamsun, whom it seems to me that much in common - to read "love slaves" or "famine" or "Pan", they may serve to illustrate (not in the low-lying sense of "explanation", while the highest - the similarity of the spirit) to each other.
.
|
How you Munch associate with Scandinavian literature! The fact is that in the late 19 th century painting Scandinavia did not differ avant-garde, but in literature it was at the forefront in Northern Europe. True, the works of Knut Hamsun (especially "Hunger") have been well known Munch. Hamsun was a representative of naturalism - the flow in the Western literature of the late 19 th century, for it is treated early Strindberg and Ibsen. And the art of Munch's 90 critics called "psychic naturalism. In the period from 1892 to 1895 in Berlin there was an avant-garde community of Scandinavian and German writers - a circle of "The Black Paros, the ideological leader of which was Strindberg, and a handful of powerful - he Przybyszewski, Munch, Ola Hannson. During this period, Munch and created his most famous things. Because of its proximity to the literary avant-garde Berlin Munch's much criticized for "literariness." With Strindberg Munch close friends, and in the work they fed off each other. In 1896, on the occasion of the exhibition Munch Strindberg in Paris, wrote a critical article in which he gave his (sexist) treatment of paintings, in a sense distort the designs of the Munch, but he did not object. You are well noticed that his paintings - not an illustration of someone's philosophical views - at the Munk had his own concept of all the above topics (the metaphysics of love, the concept of a woman, the philosophy of death), they built on their own experience. However, it coincided largely with the decadent views on these issues.